CA Unpub Decisions

Michelle R. appeals juvenile court orders suspending her right to make educational decisions on behalf of her minor daughters, Joey H. and Kylie H. (together, the minors) after the court declared the minors dependents and removed them from Michelle's custody. Michelle contends that she was willing and able to make decisions for the minors' education, and that her guidance would be in the minors' best interests. We affirm the orders.

The record here shows the decedent in this wrongful death case may have been walking on a trail which runs between a guardrail and a sheer cliff above the ocean when she fell from the cliff and was fatally injured. Because the trail was not part of a public street, the municipality which owns the trail argued in the trial court that it is immune from liability for her death as a matter of law. The trial court agreed with the municipality and granted its motion for summary judgment. We reverse.
Although the evidence in the record permits an inference the decedent was walking west of the guardrail and on the trail, the evidence also permits the inference the decedent was walking on the shoulder of a public street east of the guardrail when she tripped or fell over the guardrail and from there over the cliff. If a trier of fact accepted the later inference, the immunity the municipality asserts would not apply. Thus, in light of the conflicting inferences raised by the record, the trial court erred in finding the statutory immunity applied as a matter of law.

Defendant Louis Cornell Holiday entered into a plea arrangement with the trial court despite an objection by the People. Pursuant to the arrangement, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery, attempted first degree robbery, first degree burglary, criminal threats, and receipt of stolen property. He also admitted certain enhancement allegations. Consistent with the plea arrangement, the trial court imposed a sentence of 19 years eight months in state prison, but stayed execution of the sentence and released defendant on his own recognizance with the understanding that if defendant personally appeared at the next scheduled hearing, defendant would be permitted to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea to lesser charges. In that event, the trial court would reduce his sentence to a term of eight years eight months in prison. But if defendant failed to appear at the next scheduled hearing, the trial court would execute the imposed sentence of 19 years eight months in prison.
Defendant did not personally appear at the next scheduled hearing, and the trial court executed the previously imposed sentence of 19 years eight months in prison. Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause.

A jury found defendant Robert Rodriguez guilty of second degree murder for killing his prison cellmate, who 11 years earlier had killed defendant’s brother.
On appeal, defendant claims: (1) his counsel was ineffective for not requesting optional language on antecedent threats in two jury instructions; and (2) the court abused its discretion in ordering defendant shackled during trial. Disagreeing, we affirm.

The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging the minor, D. E., committed five counts of vandalism, four counts of arson, and one count each of arson of an inhabited structure and possessing combustible material with the intent to set fire to a structure. The court adjudged the minor a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, subd. (a)) and placed him on probation subject to various conditions, with 90 days’ predisposition custody credit.
On appeal, the minor contends he was entitled to an additional 6 days’ custody credit; the People agree. We shall modify the probation order and affirm the judgment as modified.

Tiffany Daniell Moorer appeals from the judgment entered after her plea of no contest to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), following the denial of a suppression motion (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). The court sentenced her to prison for three years, suspended execution of sentence, and placed her on formal probation for three years. We affirm the judgment.

After a court trial, defendant and appellant Michael Rivera was convicted of committing a series of offenses, including several robberies and an assault, and was sentenced to a term of five years in prison. The record contains conflicting information regarding whether the court also found him guilty of receiving stolen property. We conclude the trial court did not find him guilty of that offense. Rivera also contends, and the People concede, that his sentence on a subordinate count was miscalculated. Accordingly, we order the record corrected to show Rivera was not convicted of receiving stolen property, and modify his sentence on the weapons enhancement appended to count 2 to a term of four months. In all other respects, we affirm.

Defendant and appellant Angel Garcia appeals his convictions for making criminal threats, and misdemeanor assault. The trial court sentenced Garcia to a term of three years eight months in prison. Garcia contends the trial court erred by improperly admitting evidence that he made “gang-related statements.” He also requests that we review the sealed record of the trial court’s Pitchess[1] examination of police personnel records to determine whether the court abused its discretion by failing to order disclosure. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216.) We affirm.

Plaintiff and cross-defendant Junwei Liu appeals a judgment entered against him and in favor of defendants and cross-complainants Jing Sun and Unity Professional Insurance Services, Inc. (Unity) after a bench trial. Liu and Sun formed JSL Insurance Solutions, Inc. (JSL) as a company engaged in the insurance sales business. Unfortunately, Liu and Sun had many disputes regarding the operation of JSL and Unity, Sun’s wholly owned company. In their pleadings, both sides asserted numerous direct claims against each other, as well as derivative claims on behalf of JSL.[1]
At trial the two sides presented evidence regarding two very different versions of events which led to this action. The trial court found Liu’s testimony not credible and Sun’s testimony credible, and then entered a statement of decision and judgment in favor of Sun and Unity. We affirm.

This is a marital dissolution case between appellant Hyeonjoo Mundkowsky (wife) and respondent Robert Mundkowsky (husband). Although the trial court entered a comprehensive judgment in 2008, the couple has continuously litigated many issues, including child custody and child support, since then. In this appeal, wife contends the trial court made numerous reversible errors in orders it entered on June 28, 2011 and August 22, 2011. We shall conclude that wife did not meet her burden of showing the trial court committed a reversible error.

Defendant and appellant, Carlos Pineda, appeals his conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm (2 counts) with enhancements for firearm use, great bodily injury and a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 245, subd. (b), 12022.53, 12022.5, 12022.7, 667, subds. (a)-(i)).[1] He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 44 years 4 months.
The judgment is affirmed as modified.

T.J. (Mother) petitions this court for extraordinary relief under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, asking us to set aside the juvenile court’s order setting a permanent plan hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26 (.26 hearing), as well as the court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders in connection with a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387. We deny the petition on the merits.

We are familiar with the facts of this case through our review of a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452 in a related case, M.A. v. Superior Court (Jan. 18, 2012, A133633). There, we denied a petition brought by M.A. (Mother) challenging the juvenile court’s order setting a permanent plan hearing for her two older children, G.J.A. and O.A. (collectively, the siblings). In this appeal, Mother challenges the juvenile court’s assumption of jurisdiction over another child, M.A. (Minor), and its dispositional order denying reunification services. We affirm.

Manuel and Virginia Madrid appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained respondents’ demurrers to their amended complaint without leave to amend. Essentially, appellants argue that they alleged facts sufficient to state causes of action based on the execution, notarization, and recordation of a purportedly forged assignment of a deed of trust to the respondent that pursued foreclosure proceedings against appellants’ property. We will dismiss the appeal as to respondent DOCX, LLC, and affirm the judgment as to all other respondents.